Posted on 03/16/2011 5:38:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
What are you talking about? Many have done so, all with the same result. No satisfaction from the courts. No satisfaction from our elected "leaders." And so, no answers. Still no verifiable proof that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. He remains the alleged president.
Damn good opinion too!
If he got there by hook-n-crook and scamming the Constitution he should be jerked out of the POTUSA pronto and any dereliction of determining such is a slap in the face, so to speak, of this Nations Constitution. I don’t like the idea of crooks enjoying their loot at my expense.
If he got there by hook-n-crook and scamming the Constitution he should be jerked out of the POTUSA pronto and any dereliction of determining such is a slap in the face, so to speak, of this Nations Constitution. I don’t like the idea of crooks enjoying their loot at my expense.
What are you talking about? Many have done so, all with the same result. No satisfaction from the courts. No satisfaction from our elected “leaders.” And so, no answers. Still no verifiable proof that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. He remains the alleged president.
I am also talking about a CONGRESSIONAL subpoena, issued by any Chairperson of any committee or sub-committee of the US House of Representatives. Any of the new Republican committee chairs in the House of Representatives can initiate an investigation of whether Barack Obama meets the constitution’s eligibility requirements.
What I am NOT talking about is another failed civil suit with plaintiffs who don’t have standing to sue.
There are NO issues of standing on the CRIMINAL side of the judicial system.
But if you want to keep whining for Obama to produce a “$12 document,’ Be my guest.
Hey, just do it. Fight on every front.
Raider, I challenged you to back your statements up with a sound argument or to show with substance where my argument is incorrect. What happened? Do you really wish to appear as one who lacks credibility with his arguments?
Ive addressed everything I need to with you. Why would you try to call me out by replying to a post that I sent to someone else?
You have been PROVEN wrong in your statements yet you continue to assert them. Provide substantiation for that which you assert. So far, nothing. Zero. You are making yourself appear non-substantive. If you are unable to back your statements, this site will eat you alive.
What statements have been proven wrong? What assertions have I made that are not true?
If you are unable to back your statements, this site will eat you alive.
Lets see, perhaps a refresher is in order.
Raider Sam Post 155
"All it does is say how Congress will appoint a new President if the current doesnt qualify. It does not mention who is responsible and it does not require Congress to ensure eligibility."
W R O N G
My Post 360, 365, 366, and 375 prove that Congress is indeed the ones who are REQUIRED by the language of the Constitution to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. Post 375 shows that even the Obama legal team agrees with this. Your response to this? Silence.
Raider Sam Post 340
"There is nothing in the Constitution that allows you to remove the President if he hasnt been proven ineligible"
W R O N G
My post 340 and 360 prove that the burden of proof is on the President elect to prove that he/she is eligible and not as you assert on some other party proving he/she is ineligible. Your response to this? Silence.
Raider Sam Post 356
”What you linked to (which has been posted multiple times on this thread) does prove my point. The 20th Amendment shows how to act if the President is ineligible. It doesnt say that Congress gets to determine that.”
W R O N G
My post 360, 365, 366, and 375 prove Congress is responsible and named as such in the Constitution. Your response to this? Silence.
Raider Sam Post 357
”Your “burden of proof” is something you fabricated by cherrypicking parts of sentences that dont actually back what you claim.
W R O N G
My post 340, 360, 365, 366, and 375 prove that the burden of proof is on the one seeking the office . Your response to this? Denial without substantiation in your post 357 and otherwise, silence.
Raider Sam Post 363
”I never said Congress was not involved in Presidential succession. They are, if both Pres and VP are ineligible. As for your question, it does say how to act without saying who is responsible for verifying.”
W R O N G
My post 340, 360, 365, 366, and 375 prove that Congress is responsible and named as such in the Constitution. Your response to this? Continual denial without substantiation in your post 357 and 363 and otherwise, silence.
Raider Sam Post 367
”It doesnt say that at all.”
W R O N G
My post 340, 360, 365, 366, and 375 prove that Congress is responsible and named as such in the Constitution. Your response to this? Continual denial without substantiation in your post 357 and 363 and otherwise, silence.
Raider Sam Post 408
”Ive addressed everything I need to with you.”
W R O N G
None of your postings are substantiated with facts. When presented with facts, you have avoided addressing them and have continued to assert PROVEN INCORRECT assertions. Your opinions are not facts. Facts are facts. Fact is you are wrong a lot and don't seem to mind displaying it.
Then, after all of this, you still have the nerve to post more stupidity.
Raider Sam Post 410
"What statements have been proven wrong? What assertions have I made that are not true?"
This post should do the trick. Read it slowly if you have to.
Maybe you should re-read the 20th and find something that says Congress determines the President’s eligibility, which it doesnt.
You make a lot of assumptions that are not found in the language of the document. But if you wish to treat the Constitution as a living, breathing document that you can add to, feel free.
W R O N G again. I have not said that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. If the meaning of laws can change, there is NO law. The only way to change the Constitution is through the amendment process. You are a waste of time. Have your fun with someone else.
I didnt say that you said the Constitution is a living document, I said you are treating it as though it is. You are adding requirements into amendments that dont have them and you are blatantly disregarding the actual written words in favor of assuming they mean what you had hoped they did.
You still amongst the FReeping? +
No
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.